ConnecticutBob.Com is a modest blog on the internet since 2006. Progressive ideas are encouraged, and all politically-minded and reasonable people are welcome. America is the greatest country in the world, but we'll invade you if you disagree.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

The NRA wins again

Yesterday the Senate voted down several common-sense gun control measures that would have taken guns out of the hands of exactly ZERO law-abiding gun owners, while simultaneously keeping guns from being purchased by suspected terrorists and people on the no-fly list.

This is absolutely no surprise, as the Republicans are so terrified of being primaried for their own seats by massively-fund NRA-approved candidates that basically all of them voted against the measures.

Last week's dramatic Senate filibuster in the wake of the Orlando massacre by Connecticut senator Chris Murphy forced the chamber to take up the vote. While nobody honestly expected the bills to pass, it DID show just how hypocritical the Republicans are when matters of preventing gun violence are brought up. The partisan voting lines showed America just where their candidates lean on an issue that has been receiving overwhelming support in recent polls.

Hopefully this will equate to the Democrats taking back enough seats in both Houses of Congress that we will get meaningful legislation passed during the upcoming Clinton administration.

Ever since the Newtown mass shooting, I've known of a sure-fire way to immediately turn public opinion so much against the NRA-supported candidates that even THEY will have to vote for common-sense legislation:

Release the Sandy Hook crime scene photos.

Just by doing this one simple thing, the entire debate will be rendered unnecessary, as the horrific imagery will completely end any discussion on the need for private citizens to have access to assault rifles.

Of course, this will never happen (barring a successful legal challenge to the DOJ on the public need to see these photos) as the carnage will both bring incredible pain to the families of the victims, and absolutely horrify the American public.

Which is why it needs to be done.

Because without meaningful legislation to end this madness, we'll see even MORE schools, MORE nightclubs, MORE shopping malls, MORE theaters...basically, more EVERYTHING being shot up by mentally-damaged individuals or terrorists with agendas of hatred.

All of this because the NRA is a powerful lobby, and some fearful Americans are willing to put up with the more and more frequent mass shootings because they feel safer cuddling with their AR-15s.

What is the root of the problem is the idea that "a good guy with a gun" can counter a maniac out to kill. There was an armed cop at the club in Orlando. He recognized he was outgunned and high-tailed it out of there. We can't protect people from mass shootings as long as assault rifles are easily available, even to demonstrably crazy people, because "it's their right!"

I knew a fellow that landed in the middle of a conflict with 2 other fellows; none of them envisioned themselves as any sort of "commandos".Never-the-less the 3 of them eliminated 235 much better armed Nazis.3 Americans killed 235, mostly as silently as possible.

The registered Democrat that perpetrated the slaughter in Orlando had no special training and did not have a fully automatic weapon of any kind.

I'm confident anyone with a hand gun might well have stopped him. The death toll should have been much lower.

So, a "good guy with a gun", who was probably a little buzzed from drinking (or shall we now have "designated shooters"?) is your calm, reasoned solution? Um, the club was still crowded (oh right, they were only gays, right? So God said it's okay?) What was it called during the "W" years? Oh right, "collateral damage". Plus, they were mostly young Latinos, so you could call it a "two-fer", right?

Seriously?Do even know anyone that carries regularly?If so, do they seem to visit a range with some frequency?Does even one strike you as someone that would carry into a bar and have a drink?So help me; I don't know anyone that stupid.

There's a reason that police are 17 times more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than a permit holder.

So then, having excluded those so stupid who would walk into a bar carrying (which is exactly why bars are on the "Gun Free Zone" list,) exactly WHO would be this putative "Good guy with a gun"? Remember, Pulse had a "good guy with a gun": an off-duty cop, who immediately assessed the situation and confronted the killer outside the bar.

>>exactly why bars are on the "Gun Free Zone"Not in all states by any means; nor should they. Many of us simply don't drink.

An off duty cop might well be like majority of police officers, and spend only the required time annually at the range. Most spend zero time getting additional training unless it's required. The off duty officer in question clearly knew his own limitations. (I think he should be ashamed of himself, but I doubt he is or ever will be.)

Meanwhile, scores of "civilians" book time and training (expensive) at places like Southington's King 33 http://www.king33training.com/

I know one such individual well; his occupation is suit and tie, has a masters in Nat'l. Security; but spends his own money and time gaining superior training. He tells me the place is booked pretty solid. I have complete confidence that given the circumstances the offending shooter would have been neutralized in short order.

What I admire most about you, ACR, is that you can look at a policy or political issue from a practical (as opposed to a dogmatic) aspect. Too many of our so-called leaders, on both sides of the political abyss, have political dogma as their lodestar.

Compromise doesn't have winners or losers. But through compromise, our democracy is the winner (as is our Republic.)

You and I will likely never fully agree on any potential solution to our Country's many challenges. But each can disagree while having respect for the other's intellect and patriotism.